Mac OS X 10.7.3 beta supports AMD's next-gen desktop graphics

As Apple considers scrapping its Mac Pro line of desktops, the latest beta of Mac OS X 10.7.3 includes support for AMD's "Tahiti" graphics cards. But whether Tahiti-powered Mac Pros will ever be released remains to be seen.

Beta drivers for AMD's next-generation graphics cards are contained in the newest beta of Mac OS X 10.7.3, as first reported by Netkas.org (viaMacRumors). The inclusion is noteworthy for the Mac Pro lineup because it is the only product Apple sells with desktop graphics cards.

While support for Tahiti is a sign that Apple is internally testing the next-generation graphics with a potentially updated Mac Pro, it is by no means certain that the company will in fact update the Mac Pro lineup.

AppleInsider first reported in October that Apple has internally developed a revision to the Mac Pro, but it remains undecided whether the updated desktop will see the light of day. People famliar with the matter said management, as far back as this May, were in limbo over whether to put any additional resources toward the product line.

Internal discussions at Apple were said to focus on the fact that sales of the high-end Mac Pro workstations have dropped off so considerably that the desktop machines are no longer particularly profitable for the company.

AMD's next-generation graphics cards are scheduled to arrive in the first quarter of calendar 2012, around the same time that Intel's new Sandy Bridge Xeon chips will hit the market. If Apple does decide to release a new Mac Pro, those components are expected to power the refreshed hardware.

Apple last updated its Mac Pro lineup in July of 2010, adding support for up to 12 processing cores with Intel Xeon processors. Apple has updated its entire Mac lineup except for the Mac Pro in 2011.

If Apple updated these machines more often, then they would sell better. They used to do it twice a year as new cpu's and gpu's came out. As they moved that schedule to once a year, and now to, what?; There is less incentive to upgrade.

This is exactly what happened to their server line. At first, it was very popular, but Apple's refusal to make blades, and two and three slot models caused its popularity to slide into discontinuance.

I have the 2009 model, and would consider a 2011 model if it has Ivy Bridge chips and Express 3. But now...

If Apple updated these machines more often, then they would sell better. They used to do it twice a year as new cpu's and gpu's came out. As they moved that schedule to once a year, and now to, what?; There is less incentive to upgrade.

This is exactly what happened to their server line. At first, it was very popular, but Apple's refusal to make blades, and two and three slot models caused its popularity to slide into discontinuance.

I have the 2009 model, and would consider a 2011 model if it has Ivy Bridge chips and Express 3. But now

Umm... Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro because there haven't been any new CPUs to update to. And unless you really count CPU bumps as updates, the rest of the Mac lineup only gets one meaningful performance update a year. The chassis itself hasn't changed for years, and new GPUs can be released separately from the Mac Pro.

If anything, Apple is waiting so that it can add Thunderbolt support and maybe even USB 3.0 (sadly, the Intem Sandy Bridge-E doesn't include it).

I don't think it's a matter of if the Mac Pro will be killed off but rather when. I do think there is room for one more revision because the Mini is still a year or two away from becoming capable enough to serve as an adequate substitute. Right now the Mini is a decent choice for the non-professional who does the occasional video work (that's where I fit in) but isn't yet the powerhouse it needs to be in order to be a proper alternative to the Mac Pro. As well, one of the most important pieces of the puzzle for the Mini is Thunderbolt which is still not a broadly supported technology.

As such, one more Mac Pro revision does seem like the logical way to go. After this next revision, though, it's likely going to be time to pull the plug and I think Apple will.

If Apple updated these machines more often, then they would sell better. They used to do it twice a year as new cpu's and gpu's came out. As they moved that schedule to once a year, and now to, what?; There is less incentive to upgrade.

Actually, it doesn't change the incentive to upgrade. You upgrade when the new ones meet your needs better than the old ones - and the difference is enough to justify the cost. Very, very few people could justify a twice-a-year upgrade, so once a year doesn't change anything.

The important thing is that Apple really hasn't changed its upgrade schedule. They never had a formal timeline. Rather, the timeline was that they released an upgrade when Intel had a chip that was sufficiently different to justify it. For the Xeon MP chips, there really isn't anything new to upgrade TO. Yes, there are chips with a slightly higher clock speed, but it's really not worth releasing a new system for a 3% increase in THEORETICAL performance. When Intel has new Xeon chips with significantly greater capabilities, Apple will undoubtedly follow.

It's different for the iMac and MacBook lines. First, Intel increases the performance of its consumer chips much more quickly than its professional chips. Second, consumers are more likely to be swayed by specs like CPU speed. A consumer will often see two computers where one is 3.1 GHz and the other is 3.2 GHz and automatically assume that the 'faster' one is better. Pros are more likely to evaluate the entire system and not focus as much on any one number.

i hate to say this, but I can understand why they are reluctant to keep the Pro alive.
If you look at desktop sales at Apple and the industry as a whole they are flat or declining in favor of mobile devices.* If these sales trends continue then at some point it will not be worth the engineering costs for Apple to refresh the Pro.

i hate to say this, but I can understand why they are reluctant to keep the Pro alive.
If you look at desktop sales at Apple and the industry as a whole they are flat or declining in favor of mobile devices.* If these sales trends continue then at some point it will not be worth the engineering costs for Apple to refresh the Pro.

*As a percentage of sales.

Yes, but it's still a significant market. And Apple used to have a very high (and profitable) share of the graphics production market. It would be a shame to see that go.

i hate to say this, but I can understand why they are reluctant to keep the Pro alive.
If you look at desktop sales at Apple and the industry as a whole they are flat or declining in favor of mobile devices.* If these sales trends continue then at some point it will not be worth the engineering costs for Apple to refresh the Pro.

*As a percentage of sales.

The MacPro sales are down because the thing is too friggn expensive. A few years ago, many users were begging for a more affordable mid-tower, but thanks to the iArrogance, that never happened.

So for that market it's either the iMac or the Mini, both of which are no replacement to a mid-tower.